ack_create_did_pkh

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys the core transformation (chain ID + wallet address → did:pkh URI) and the intended use case, which is meaningful. However, it does not disclose validation behavior, error handling, side effects, or return format, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the operation and inputs, the second provides the use case. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with fully documented schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the output type (DID URI) and the use case, though it could also mention the exact URI structure or validation of the chainId enum. The absence of an output schema makes a small additional note desirable, but not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters well, including a CAIP-2 explanation and examples for chainId and a clear description for address. The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond a generic restatement, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('did:pkh DID URI'), and the exact inputs ('blockchain chain ID and wallet address'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ack_create_did_web by specifying the on-chain/did:pkh method, so an agent can tell them apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use for representing on-chain identities (e.g. Ethereum wallets) as DIDs.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like ack_create_did_web, but the use case is specific enough to route the agent correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.